At The Cafe Door: October 2011

Monday, 31 October 2011

The Prague Cemetery

A sensitive reader might get the impression while reading The Prague Cemetery that Umberto Eco does not much care what you, think about him as an author or the story he has to tell. In a note at the front of the book, Eco envisions one of two kinds of people who might flip through his pages. The first has no idea that the events described in the book actually happened. This reader, accidentally drawn from the great unwashed masses, “knows nothing about nineteenth-century literature, and might even have taken Dan Brown seriously.” The second reader, on the other hand, understands the historical and contemporary significance of said events. To this reader Eco would perhaps append the adjectives “educated” and “worthy.” I don’t know why Eco felt it necessary to start the reading experience off so combatively, but while this attitude would make him a wearisome dinner guest, it needn’t necessarily stand in the way of a good story.

In addition to being a sometimes novelist, Umberto Eco is a philosopher, literary critic, semiotician, and author of dozens of learned books a wide variety of topics, from medieval history to mass media and culture. He made his name in literary circles with his first novel, The Name of the Rose, a quest for a mythical lost work of Aristotle that is, in fact, a Dan Brown-esque page-turner that does not make you feel dumb inside.[1]

Published just over three decades later, The Prague Cemetery, Eco’s fifth novel, is told through a series of journals and letters written by and between Captain Simone Simonini (a racist, misogynist, anti-Semitic, spy, forger, master of disguise, and proprietor of the seedy Parisian pawn shop he uses as a front) and Abbé Dalla Piccola (a pietistic and self-righteous Catholic priest).[2]Interspersed throughout book are chapters, written by an unnamed narrator, that summarize large swaths of the journals and letters thought by this unnamed narrator to be too boring. The story wanders through the history of Europe from 1830 through 1898, pausing along the way to insert Simonini into historical events such as the unification of Italy, the Paris Commune, the Dreyfus Affair, and, finally, the publication of The Protocols of the Elders of Zion. On the surface, The Prague Cemetery appears to be cut from the same cloth as The Name of the Rose, but Eco unfortunately remained faithful to a premise that is interesting in theory but that ultimately got in the way of a good story.

The premise? What if there was one man—Captain Simonini—behind some of the most significant events in Europe during the late nineteenth century? And what if this man wakes up one morning to find he can’t remember significant chunks of the previous month? And what if he discovers there is a priest living in a room attached to his apartment by a secret hallway who seems to have knowledge—discovered through the surreptitious reading of his journals and letters—of the days (and only those days) that Simonini can’t remember? As Simonini attempts to reconcile all of this, the novel meanders toward the publication of The Protocols of the Elders of Zion and to his moment of self-discovery (discovered by the reader about 300 pages earlier), but by the time you arrive at the book’s destination you only wish that Eco had taken a page or two from Dan Brown.

In the aforementioned author’s note, Eco makes a point to emphasize that Captain Simonini is the only fictional character of any consequence in the novel, an assertion confirmed through research conducted by this reviewer on a randomly selected sampling of characters. For example, very old Europeans as well as students of nineteenth-century history may recognize Guiseppe Garibaldi,[3] Leo Taxil,[4] or possibly Edouard Drumont[5]. These and many (many) others flit in an out of the book, not as developed characters but as a parade of names that reveal Eco’s thorough command of European history but do little in service of a coherent story.

Eco seems to understand this—at one point Simonini writes that his mind is a “continual cloud” and that he is letting his pen wander wherever his instinct leads. And in an appendix titled “Useless Learned Explanations,” Eco includes a timeline for the reader “who is not so quick on the uptake” along with the note that “the Narrator, to be honest, has often found it difficult finding his own way around, but feels a competent reader need not become lost in the detail and enjoy the story just the same.” The incompetent reader is left wondering what he or she ever did to get on the wrong side of Umberto Eco.

From The Name of the Rose to The Prague Cemetery, Eco has repeatedly turned to conspiracies as a narrative device in his fiction and he imbues a great deal of significance on the relationship between the historical record and the events and people depicted in his newest novel. Returning again to the author’s note and his ideal reader, Eco writes, “The fact that history can be quite so devious may cause this reader’s brow to become lightly beaded with sweat. He will look anxiously behind him, switch on all the lights, and suspect that these things could happen again today. In fact, they may be happening in that very moment. And he will think, as I do: ‘They are still among us…’” If not for the fact that he had pejoratively referenced Dan Brown and his readers just lines earlier, I would assume that Eco was having a little fun here, but I think he’s serious.

There are the makings of a good story in The Prague Cemetery, maybe even two or three, but instead we have what seem like research notes hastily formed into something loosely resembling a novel. Midway through the book, Captain Simonini accurately describes my experience reading The Prague Cemetery: “I didn’t understand the link between the various events he was describing, but the story seemed to revolve around the continual threat from three evil powers that were surreptitiously taking over the world…” Yep, that’s about right.

Reviewed by David Johnson

The Shock Doctrine

THE SHOCK DOCTRINE

THE RISE OF DISASTER CAPITALISM

In THE SHOCK DOCTRINE, Naomi Klein explodes the myth that the global free market triumphed democratically. Exposing the thinking, the money trail and the puppet strings behind the world-changing crises and wars of the last four decades, The Shock Doctrine is the gripping story of how America’s “free market” policies have come to dominate the world-- through the exploitation of disaster-shocked people and countries.

At the most chaotic juncture in Iraq’s civil war, a new law is unveiled that would allow Shell and BP to claim the country’s vast oil reserves…. Immediately following September 11, the Bush Administration quietly out-sources the running of the “War on Terror” to Halliburton and Blackwater…. After a tsunami wipes out the coasts of Southeast Asia, the pristine beaches are auctioned off to tourist resorts.... New Orleans’s residents, scattered from Hurricane Katrina, discover that their public housing, hospitals and schools will never be reopened…. These events are examples of “the shock doctrine”: using the public’s disorientation following massive collective shocks – wars, terrorist attacks, or natural disasters -- to achieve control by imposing economic shock therapy. Sometimes, when the first two shocks don’t succeed in wiping out resistance, a third shock is employed: the electrode in the prison cell or the Taser gun on the streets.

Based on breakthrough historical research and four years of on-the-ground reporting in disaster zones, The Shock Doctrine vividly shows how disaster capitalism – the rapid-fire corporate reengineering of societies still reeling from shock – did not begin with September 11, 2001. The book traces its origins back fifty years, to the University of Chicago under Milton Friedman, which produced many of the leading neo-conservative and neo-liberal thinkers whose influence is still profound in Washington today. New, surprising connections are drawn between economic policy, “shock and awe” warfare and covert CIA-funded experiments in electroshock and sensory deprivation in the 1950s, research that helped write the torture manuals used today in Guantanamo Bay.

The Shock Doctrine follows the application of these ideas through our contemporary history, showing in riveting detail how well-known events of the recent past have been deliberate, active theatres for the shock doctrine, among them: Pinochet’s coup in Chile in 1973, the Falklands War in 1982, the Tiananmen Square Massacre in 1989, the collapse of the Soviet Union in 1991, the Asian Financial crisis in 1997 and Hurricane Mitch in 1998.

Plato's Symposium

Plato developed a two layer view of reality, the world of Becoming and the world of Being. The world of Becoming is the physical world we percieve through our senses. This world is always in movement, always changing. The world of Being is the world of forms, or ideas. It is absolute, independent, and transcendent. It never changes and yet causes the essential nature of things we percieve in the world of Becoming. Though Plato was sometimes vague about the exact relationship between the two worlds, he has suggested two ways in which they may interact. Objects in the material world may be only imperfect copies or imitations of the ideal, and objects may participate in the formness they are representing. The Symposium has suggested to me that Plato may have arrived at a new understanding of the relationship between the two worlds when dealing with the particular form of Man. In the Symposium, Plato seems to have reasoned out an internal mechanism through which men may make their way through the world of Becoming to the world of Being. He shows how, through the most mysterious and powerful medium of love, men may eventually arrive at the Highest Good, an intuitive and mystical state of consciousness. As Diotema says, only in such an experience is ultimate meaning found for human beings.

I think it's interesting to note Diotema's argument takes place solely within the framework of Socrates' memory: She is one more step removed, by space and time, from the reality of Agathon's party and, by analogy, her argument is that much more evolved beyond the arguments that have gone before. Her dialogue with Socrates about the nature of love seems to be in three parts. In the first part, Diotema establishes the concept of duality in differentiating between the mortal and divine and claims love is an informing spirit, and a bridge, between the two worlds. She does this by agreeing with Socrates that love is a lover of beautiful things, and since one does not pursue that which one already has, love cannot be divine because gods already possess the good and the beautiful. Diotema then relates the parable of poverty and plenty, emphasizing love's dual nature; it springs from need and lack but has the possiblity of eliciting from human beings endurance and great achievement. She relates this concept to the personal by saying a philosopher, like love, is a mean between the opposites of wisdom and ignorance, and concludes love is a philosopher. Just as philosophy is a quest between what is and wha

Though this first part seems to be the bulk of Diotema's argument, Socrates questions its usefullness, so Diotema moves from her more abstract argument, and restates her points in the second part, relying on particulars and analogy. She helps Socrates clarify that those who pursue the good through love can eventually gain happiness, the point of fulfillment where desire and need are satisfied. This endpoint is the ideal, the essence of the good, and she alludes to the philosopher again when she reiterates that though there are many avenues of this pursuit, only one of these will help one gain the ideal. They then agree that love is the love of having the good (the ideal) for oneself always. Diotema claims the process of pursuing the good is by creation through both body and soul. The desire to create (or procreate) is a divine urge in a mortal creature, stimulated by any contact with beautiful things and deadened when one encounters ugliness. Whether one creates in the body by having children, or in the soul by creating works of art and philosophy, here Diotema again emphasizes the duality of the mortal and the divine, and restates the point that love is not an end in itself, but is for 'birthing' in the beautiful; it is a process and a bridge between the two worlds, a gateway toward attaining immortality. She discounts the other avenues of pursuing the good by saying that any love that does not include the desire for the eternal will not be the love of having the good for oneself always.

In the third part of Diotema's argument, which Socrates tells us takes place at a later date than the preceding discussions, Diotema draws distinctions between the two roads to immortality, somewhat dismissing the pursuit of immortality through procreation in the body as she discusses the mating urges of the animal world, and concentrates on the process of soul growth. This part really comes to the heart of Socrates' mystical viewpoint and relates very clearly to his Divided Line. Diotema says the process is like the ascent of a staircase, in which one moves from the love of one beautiful body to the love of two, until one loves beautiful bodies in general. Here, one arrives at the point where one can see the same beauty (the divine spark), in essence, in every person. Then, one pursues Beauty in practices and accumulation of knowledge, arriving at last at the perfect learning which is that of Beauty itself, which can only be percieved with the mind. Diotema makes the wonderful statement that this contemplation of Beauty (the Good) itself is the only thing that makes life worth living for men. Touching the apex of Socrates' Divided Line is the only true and worthwhile experience, far beyond the value of wealth and sensuous pleasures, for here one touches the ultimate reality, God, and becomes, in a sense, divine oneself. Socrates' first statement following Diotema's conclusion is notable when he says, "One could not find a better helper for human nature than love." Here, Socrates demonstrates understanding, at last, of the true role of love in human life, as a helper and bridge, by eliciting desire through the awareness of lack and by identifying with our hereditary connection and remembrance of fullfillment, from the world of Becoming back to the world of Being.

Plato's Symposium follows the form of the Divided Line. If the preceding discussion between Diotema and Socrates includes the intuitional knowledge about the true nature of love and its place in human existence, knowledge obtained at the top, then the arguments preceding reflect the ascent from Becoming to Being in refining one's understanding of what love is, and the events following reflect a descent back into the mortal world. Phaidros delivers the first argument, stating the most obvious facts about love: That love is a great god, that it is one of the most powerful forces driving men's actions, and a superior romance is one in which one lover is willing to die for the other. However, Phaidros stays in the lower realm of personal and physical love and makes the mistake of, in Diotema's words, taking "one kind of love, and giving it the name of the whole, love."

Pausanias goes beyond Phaidros' one-dimensional praise and introduces the idea of dualism. One type of love is "common", based on sensuality, works at random, and produces children, the other love is "heavenly", based on companionship, involves mental and soul oriented pursuits, and produces virtue. Conscious choice, rather than happenstance, plays a great part in "heavenly" love. Pausanias claims this love should be encouraged and relates its pursuit to the health of society, and says it can only become ugly if exploitation is a motive of the lover. However, Pausanias does not discriminate between the physical and spiritual aspects of "heavenly" love, claiming this love itself is so good it's ennobling. Though he has brought out one of Diotema's major points, the idea of duality in love, Pausanias' analysis is much less exact than Diotema's and he fails to see the limitations inherent in physicality.

Eryximachos compliments Pausanias on his explanation of the dual nature of love, and argues for a balance between the two, claiming both are required for a peaceful existence. Here, Eryximachos has vaguely introduced Diotema's idea of a "bridge" between two differing states, but the physical aspects of love are still not clearly separated from the spiritual aspects and Eryximachos, in a kind of empirical zeal, equates one kind of love with illness.

Aristophenes relates the power of love to the human pursuit of wholeness by introducing a myth, like the myth of the Fall, in which humans were divided into male and female. This is a different level of loving in which two come together to become one, to find union in body and soul. Aristophenes is suggesting the possibilities of human love in that the desire for unity with another is symbolic of the desire of unity with the essence of the good, or God. He agrees with Diotema that unity itself is a good, but Aristophenes fails to point out that unity should be ultimately with the essence of Beauty, unity with another human being is just an experience on the way.

Agathon addresses this weakness in Arisophenes' argument when he points out that love is the way by which all things are made or created. When humans are motivated by love, they create in many ways besides the physical, indeed all creations are made by love. Agathon has hit upon one of Diotema's final points, that love is a creative force, it is an avenue through which we manifest our own potential, and help others to manifest theirs.

Each speaker leading up to Diotema's argument unveils one layer of what love is and what it can be, Pausanias introduces dualism, Eyximachos introduces balance, Aristophenes emphasizes physical unity, and Agathon speaks of creative unity, but it is up to Diotema to tie all these elements together and then take us to the top by showing that though all these are forms of love, true happiness lies in the contemplation of the essence of Beauty (or the Good) itself, which can be known only by the mind, and which is the final goal of the human experience of love.

The introduction of Alcibiades is the first step down from Diotema's and Socrates' dialogue. Alcibiades, a former lover of Socrates, is symbolic, when he and Socrates were friends, of the type of relationship described by Agathon. We learn theirs was a friendship based on pursuits of virtue and knowledge, and thanks to Socrates' restraint, physicality was absent. Then, Socrates warns Agathon that Aclibiades wants them to quarrel, and there seems to be a suggestion of a physical, love relationship between Agathon and Socrates. The descent is completed when the party concludes the evening with drinking, many leave, and we are told Socrates spends the rest of the night talking with Aristophenes and Agathon. These two finally also fall asleep and Socrates leaves and goes about his day as usual. So on the way down the Divided Line, the dialogue moves from trying to understand the essential nature of love to trying tounderstand certain kinds of love to practicing love in its various forms.

I was very struck by Agathon's desire to benefit from Socrates' wisdom through physical contact. Can I get what you have by touching you, or looking at you? Is it transmitted through the senses? Of course the answer is no because wisdom exists on a plane beyond the physical. Plato's Symposium reveals love, like wisdom, to be a dynamic, a flow of energy that operates throughout all the levels of human awareness, uniting and transcending or fragmenting and descending as it flows. There are latent possibilities in different kinds of love to either pull us up to Socrates' unified and ultimate good in the world of Being, or to pull us down into a dense, fragmented experience of the forms. When Diotema asks Socrates what is it that one desires when one loves, the answer is immortality, union with the eternal, and though we see divinity in all of life, it is contained in various forms which can often corrupt of distort it, as well as accurately reflect it. This is the human condition and dilemma.

Humans have a dual nature, existing in matter with the potential of the divine. We are a microcosm within the macrocosm. Love exemplifies this longing to realize the divine within us and to help others realize their potential, as well. Love helps us to find a relationship between the two worlds we live in. Employing Diotema's process of ascent, it is a movement upward to a finer and finer sense of what love is, and as we ascend we come closer to God through love's prompting our own abilities to create, first on the physical plane, then on correspondingly finer planes in the creation of works of art, which can range from a piece of literature, to a relationship, to ourselves. Love relationships have a special potential in developing spirituality, for in searching for and recognizing the divine within the beloved, one discovers the divine in oneself, and comes to recognize that, in all its forms, divinity is one and the same. Here, love can lift one up and love's beauty lies in its ability to do this for human beings. It is a process, not an end in itself, in which humans can touch the divine and in this state of perception the mystical experience takes place, a union of the human spirit with God. I agree with Diotema that this experience is ultimately the most meaningful of human experiences, purest and most refined in quality, and love, in all it's various forms, can help one get there, again and again.

Aleph

“When you reach the end of the novel and reflect on it, you realise that the sublime place that contains all lives and all universes is not just in its pages or in the title of the book. In literary terms, Paulo Coelho’s novel is, itself, the Aleph.”
Pilar Obón

“When I was twenty-two, I devoted myself to the study of magic. I followed various paths, walked too close to the edge of the abyss, slipped and fell, gave up and returned to the path. I imagined that by the time I reached fifty-nine, I would be close to achieving the paradise and absolute peace that I think I see in the smiles of Buddhist monks. However, the search for peace has its price, and I ask myself: just how far am I prepared to go?”

In a frank and surprising personal story, which draws the reader in from the very first page, Paulo Coelho reveals how a grave crisis of faith caused him to go in search of a path of spiritual renewal and growth. In order to get close to God again, he decided to start over: to travel, to experiment, to reconnect with people and the world.

Between March and July 2006, letting himself be guided by signs, he travelled to various continents – Europe, Africa and Asia – on a journey through time and space, through past and present, in search of himself.

As the journey progresses, Paulo gradually emerges from his isolation, sheds both ego and pride and opens himself up to friendship, love, faith and forgiveness, unafraid to confront the inevitable challenges of life.

In Brasil, as soon as it was released. ALEPH went directly to # 1 in all major bestselling lists, and kept the position for several weeks.

Paulo Coelho

Pandora's Box

Pandora's Box is a simple myth that explains how woman came to be, and how bad things came to earth as well. It also explores the dangers of curiosity and distrust.

Story:Prometheus was a Titan who really liked humans. He helped them in any way he could. When he saw them shivering at night and eating raw meat, he knew they needed fire. But the gods did not allow man to have fire. They knew that man would misuse it and destroy with it. Prometheus was sure that the good man did with fire would outweigh the bad, so he stole fire from the gods and gave it to man. Zeus decided to punish Prometheus with trickery. He called Aphrodite to pose while Hephaestus made a clay figure of a woman. Then he brought the statue to life. The gods granted the woman with many gifts including beauty, charm, cunning, wit, eloquence, deceit, skill, and curiosity. Then Zeus gave her a box and told her she was never to open it. Zeus then offered Pandora as a wife to Prometheus.
The Titan wanted her, but he refused because he knew it must be a trick of the gods. Zeus became angry and punished Prometheus. The Titan was chained to a rock. There, a vulture came daily to feed on his flesh. Prometheus's brother, Epimetheus, accepted Pandora as his wife, and the couple settled down for a happy life. But Pandora always wondered what was in the box Zeus gave her. Finally she couldn't hold her curiosity down anymore. She opened the box, and from it flew hate, anger, sickness, poverty, and every bad thing in the world. She slammed the lid down and managed to trap the final evil still in the box: hopelessness. So today, even when the going gets tough, every human still has hope.

Guns N' Roses - November Rain

Πώς να φτιάξετε τη γαλέτα Dukan

Φαίνεται ότι έχει πέσει ένας πανικός με τη δίαιτα Dukan, όχι μόνο εδώ στη Βρετανία (μας έχουν πρήξει με τα πόσα κιλά έχασε η μαμά της Αικατερίνης – καλέ της καινούριας πριγκηποπούλας!) αλλά και στην Ελλάδα. Σκέφτηκα να σας φτιάξω κάτι διαφορετικό – π.χ. έχει μια πολύ ενδιαφέρουσα συνταγή για muffins αλλά στη σελίδα μας στο facebook μόλις το πρότεινα έπεσε κραυγή αγωνίας για τη γαλέτα. Μιλάμε έχετε μεγάλο πόνο.

Από ότι μαθαίνω λοιπόν από τους φίλους στο facebook (και στο twitter) ετούτη η γαλέττα σας βγαίνει τα χάλια της, σας κολλάει, σας παιδεύει. Ήρθα με την έρευνα μου και τις φωτογραφίες μου.

By Sofia

Alone

Alone
by Maya Angelou

Lying, thinking Last night How to find my soul a home Where water is not thirsty And bread loaf is not stone I came up with one thing And I don't believe I'm wrong That nobody, But nobody Can make it out here alone. Alone, all alone Nobody, but nobody Can make it out here alone. There are some millionaires With money they can't use Their wives run round like banshees Their children sing the blues They've got expensive doctors To cure their hearts of stone. But nobody No, nobody Can make it out here alone. Alone, all alone Nobody, but nobody Can make it out here alone. Now if you listen closely I'll tell you what I know Storm clouds are gathering The wind is gonna blow The race of man is suffering And I can hear the moan, 'Cause nobody, But nobody Can make it out here alone. Alone, all alone Nobody, but nobody Can make it out here alone.

THE TORMENTS OF LOVE

THE TORMENTS OF LOVE

Du musst das Leben nicht verstehen,
dann wird es werden wie ein Fest.
R.M. RILKE

as her hair
blew
there before my
eyes
as if suddenly I'd woken
for the first time
I saw
- and observed -
that lovely
young
girl

I was taken
by the harmony
of her movements
the lissomness
of her limbs
the fascination
of her gaze
the gentle rotundity
of her breasts
and more by all the charm
effused
by that
elegant
vernal
creature

and I straightaway reflected
- and "philosophised" -
my mind turned
to that innocent
who may at times
- I'm sure of it -
suffer
in torment
know unhappiness
in imagining that
the tender
the ethereal
the
little creature
has a mind
and soul

and his heart may bleed
despair
in attributing
even
a grain of intelligence
to that wholly
empty
little
head

Translated by David Connolly

N.Engonopoulos

How to make roxakia (Greek cocoa, cinnamon and vanilla syrupy goodies)

Roxakia are a Greek type of sweet dough. I hope it’s mainly Greek but you never know. Anyway. They are bite sized cocoa and vanilla and cinnamon goodies that look lovely and taste like heaven. Avoid if syrupy stuff is not your cup of tea, but you will love them if you like any of the syrupy Greek, Turkish and Arabian goodies.

So. Friends of the Greek blog LOVE this dessert and have been asking me to do a video for absolute ages. I got around to it over the weekend (you canwatch the video here - it’s in Greek obviously but you’ll see the technique I am describing below) and I managed to take some pics for the English side too.

Βy Sofia

Hello November

The moon of November by Wael Moreicheh

by WAEL MOREICHEH

How the moon in November

Lovely at midnight

when the sun walk around phoenix

and Quatum Theory look at

A monarch of Apollo

In the Down cities

when snow painting king of gods

O' London city

city of love & November time of love

O ' love where's my female study in home

Queen hugs and sweet kisses

wild doe

wild

Europe

“If I were Greek I would have sued my lenders”

The journalists of the German newspaper Handelsblatt used this sentence to describe their experiences from their few days' visit to Athens of the Memorandum era and convey to their probably surprised readers, a completely different view of the crisis in the Greek economy and society, a view far from the official rhetoric of Angela Merkel, Wolfgang Schäuble and the other European politicians.

The newspaper sent a large group of journalists and photographers to Athens a few days ago to live among us. What they perceived was the climate of frustration, anger and despair, and even the underlying social explosion about which they warned the German people. And they do not even hesitate to speak of a risk of "diversion", reminding everyone that the implementation of extreme political and economic "remedies" in the past led to dictatorships!

The Handelsblatt correspondents experienced the situation in the country first hand. They talked with politicians, officials and ordinary people, and they describe an "impoverished country, which suffers from a double burden: the chaos of the debt which it has imposed on itself and the European rescue policy, which makes things even worse"…

They talk about a depressing picture, about economic life which is numb, unemployment which is increasing and about young people who are thinking of immigrating like their grandparents did! They write: "If I were Greek I would have sued the lenders and would have gone to Syntagma in front of the parliament to protest my objection to a crisis policy which does nothing but make the situation even worse."

They warn that while popular anger is apparent and occurs every day, no one can know about other underlying "situations", refering to "the military machine that ruled from 1967 to 1974 and may be looking for the opportunity to act again. We know this from many countries: shock treatments are enemies of Democracy."

Particular mention should be made of the article editor’s view, which comments on the decisions made by our European partners on our behalf throughout this period. According to the accomplished journalist, "the treatment that is now is being meted out to Greece resembles the approach of the American economist Jeffrey Sachs tested in Yeltsin's Russia: rapid release of the labour sector and the economy, acceleration of privatizations and massive cuts in social spending, something that finally created the kind of Wild West capitalism that still keeps Russian society divided into billionaires and poor people. Sachs, who became known as "Dr. Shock", was forced to come out and apologize to the Russians,".

And the article concludes: "This role of 'Dr. Shock' has now been transferred to Brussels, Berlin and Paris, and the same treatment is being applied to Greece, where once again, people who do not know how to boost the economy and the working people have taken over"…

Here is the Handelsblatt tribute for German speakers: http://www.handelsblatt.com/politik/international/griechenland-hat-kaum-etwas-zu-verkaufen/5766210.html

http://www.handelsblatt.com/politik/international/junge-griechen-elite-verlaesst-ihr-land/5765892.html

POWER OF LOVE (from "Antigone")

by: Sophocles

LOVE, thou art victor in fight: thou mak'st all things afraid;
Thou couchest thee softly at night on the cheeks of a maid;
Thou passest the bounds of the sea, and the folds of the fields;
To thee the immortal, to thee the ephemeral yields;
Thou maddenest them that possess thee; thou turnest astray
The souls of the just, to oppress them, out of the way;
Thou hast kindled amongst us pride, and the quarrel of kin;
Thou art lord, by the eyes of a bride, and the love-light therein;
Thou sittest assessor with Right; her kingdom is thine,
Who sports with invincible might, Aphrodite divine.

PRECIPICE Book Trailer

"I've been trying to convince myself since the first day we met not to go down this road," he says, "but I don't know how much longer I can keep up the charade."

I hold my breath in anticipation of what I hope he will say, knowing that I'm balancing on the precipice of a great betrayal.

When Julia said "I do" to her husband three years ago, she thought it would last forever. But when she finds herself in a dead-end marriage and in love with her best friend's boyfriend, she begins to question those relationships and everything she once believed in.

Now Julia must either do what's right . . . or follow her heart.

* * *

Confession: Normally, I am very wary of any books about marriage gone wrong, people considering affairs, or any storyline - be it book, movie, or song - dealing with the idea of following one's heart. This is because "following my heart" typically means "making an excuse for doing something bad," and I just can't get on board with that.

Fortunately, Melissa L. Garrett's debut novel for adults is not a story about making excuses.

Even though my marriage is quite happy, I found myself identifying and empathizing with Julia, the main character. She's a teacher in her mid-twenties with hardly a thought to spare for her own happiness - and zero awareness that she deserves much more from her marriage than she's getting.

When her husband is involved in an accident on a business trip, Julia must leave town to care for him. While in the hospital, she is hit with a startling revelation: she no longer loves the man lying in the hospital bed.

In fact, she's not sure she ever loved him. And she's starting to wonder if he ever loved her.

Combine that with the sudden appearance of Wes, the new music teacher, and Julia's struggling to remain faithful to a man who can't seem to keep the vows he made to her. He does not love her. He does not cherish her. In his sickness he is ungrateful to her, and in his health, he is emotionally abusive.

What I loved about this story was the way Julia does not say, "Oh well, my marriage sucks so I'm going to leave." Without giving too much away, I'll say this: She really fights for her marriage and her husband - not to mention her best friend, who's dating Wes. And in the end, she has a very hard decision to make: Work on the marriage and save her relationships with husband and best friend, or leave the marriage and ruin two people's lives in the process.

Please believe me when I say I could not stop reading this book, and I know you'll feel the same. A wonderful debut from an author I think we'll be seeing a lot of in the future.